General Negligence
Teacher recommended
?- Created by: Kelcent
- Created on: 28-01-13 10:56
View mindmap
- Simple Negligence
- Duty of Care being owed
- Test taken: Caparo Industries plc v. Dickman
- Was the damage reasonably foreseeable?
- Bhamra v. Dubb(2010)
- Was there a proximity in relationship?
- Lord Justice Goff stated that, "Proximity meant that defendant could reasonably expected to foresee his action would cause damage to claimant
- Sutradhar v. Natural Environment Research Council
- Proximity required a degree of control of the source of Claimant's injury.
- Can be express in terms of relationship between defendant, and the activity which cause harm to the claimant
- Watsonv. British Boxing Board Of Control
- Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose such duties?
- Commisionersof Customs and Excise v. BarclayBank Plc
- Was the damage reasonably foreseeable?
- Test taken: Caparo Industries plc v. Dickman
- Breach of duty by the defendant
- Standard of Care
- Reasonable Man
- Blyth v. Birmingham Water Works
- "to act in a way which a reasonable man will not do
- "to omit doing something a reasonable man would do
- Nettleship v. Weston
- Blyth v. Birmingham Water Works
- Reasonable Man
- Fallen below the standard required
- FACTORS CONSIDERED
- State of Knowledge
- Roe v. Minister of Health
- Magnitude of Risk
- Greaterrisk of harm
- Frequency/Real likelihood of damage
- Bolton v. Stone
- Risk of greater harm
- Seriousness of injury that is risked
- Paris v. Stepney
- Greaterrisk of harm
- Practicability of Precaution
- Latimerv. AEC
- Utility of Conduct
- Watt v. Hertfordshire City Council
- State of Knowledge
- FACTORS CONSIDERED
- Standard of Care
- Suffers damages
- Causation
- Remoteness of Damage
- Duty of Care being owed
- Bhamra v. Dubb(2010)
Comments
Report